Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgsql/src backend/tcop/postgres.c include/misc ...
Date: 2002-01-06 09:46:29
Message-ID: EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJCEADGGAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Now I realize that 7.1 already changed the handling of
> > die interrupts fundamentally. For example we can't kill
> > the backend which is in a trouble with an infinite loop.
> > Was it an intended change ?
>
> Doesn't bother me a whole lot; I don't think that's what the die
> interrupt is for. In my mind the main reason die() exists is to
> behave reasonably when the system is being shut down and init has
> sent SIGTERM to all processes.

In my mind the main reason die() exists is to kill individual
backends which seems to be in trouble without causing
the database-wide restart.
Before 7.1 QueryCancel flag was checked at the points
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS are currently placed.
But the QueryCancel flag had nothing to do with die
interrupts.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message momjian 2002-01-06 17:54:14 pgsql/doc/src/sgml ecpg.sgml
Previous Message tgl 2002-01-06 03:33:26 pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref createlang.sgml droplan ...